No, it isn’t. The concept behind the “war on Christmas” was brought up by a bunch of FOX News busibodies who saw attacks on the institution of Christmas in the USA. Attacks which did not exist. The list of people trying to stop others from celebrating Christmas is empty. Your attempts to conflate the efforts of organizations like American Atheists and FFRF to prevent Christians from monopolizing the public square with attempts to stop people from celebrating Christmas do nothing to negate that fact.
The catholic church is a multi-billion dollar organization that pays no taxes on its gains. It uses that money to, among other things, protect pedophiles and lie to people about preventing the spread of AIDS. Perhaps that money would be better spent on feeding people in Africa? Sounds like something Eric Trump would say. Meanwhile, this “war on Christmas” is based entirely on modern jurisprudence surrounding the first amendment. Many of its “proponents” celebrate Christmas themselves. They just think that Christians should be forced to obey the law, just like everyone else.
So you’re defining “war on Christmas” as attempts to stop people from celebrating Christmas?
I fail to see how putting up silly billboards designed to ‘troll’ Christians and Muslims is attempting to “stop monopolization”.
If that’s their aim, then if nothing else, they’re completely incompetent if nothi9ng else, and just giving Fox more ammunition to work with.
So?
So does Penn State University, what’s your point?
Perhaps groups like FFRF and AA should be the better person and spend the money they waste on inane billboards feeding starving children in Africa.
For what it’s worth, the entire operating cost of the Vatican is less than that of Harvard University.
And who is Eric Trump? Related to Donald?
And as mentioned, Dredd Scott was based on jurisprudence as well.
So if you blindly accept whatever ruling is pronunced as legitimate, then you’d have to also do so in the case of Dredd Scott.
If not then you’ll have to tell us what you believe the correct interpretation should be, and what your rationale is for.
Yawn… as mentioned above you’re going to need to explain what you believe the correct interpretation of the law is, and why you believe that for example, a student displaying a Christmas card in a public school is a “violation” of the law to begin with, as opposed to an uptight misinterpretation.
All I can personally say is that if an atheist is so weak in their belief (or lack thereof) that seeing a Christmas card in a public school is enough to force them to convert, then they’d be better off just converting to Christianity, or Islam, or something.
All I can say is that if display of another religion’s presence bothers a Christian, they should consider how the ingrained presence of their religion bothers others. It’s an all or none proposition, and not subject to historical inertia or majority preference.
The ones who scream most loudly about being “oppressed” in Christian visibility and celebrations seem to the first to screech at even nominal visibility of other religions.
Yeah the “War on Christmas” as a concept has been pretty well defined through examples by Fox News personalities. It’s at least defined enough to say whether the phenomenon it is describing actually exists in reality. And it seems quite clear that it doesn’t. There are likely isolated cases of people going overboard in separating church and state or other such things related to the supposed war, but I haven’t seen the widespread state of war that some think exists.
I can’t think of a better definition. O’Reilly certainly never provided one. I mean, we could define it as “Christians whining about losing their absolutely universal religious privilege during december”, which would fit quite well with people complaining about Starbucks cups, of all things, but to be perfectly honest, in that case the debate is less “is there a war on Christmas” (which is the debate I think you wanted to have) and more “what is wrong with the people complaining about a war on Christmas?”. So sure, let’s leave it at actual administrative of legal actions.
I explained this earlier. Basically, in many communities, there are very few if any people who are not Christians. Those people may feel isolated, alone, and helpless on the basis of their lack of faith. This informs people that there is another way, that atheism is a thing that exists.
Or, to put it another way, how many pro-Christianity billboards have you seen? And how many pro-atheist, or anti-Christian? And yet here you are complaining bitterly about a tiny minority of billboards. Why?
If that’s their aim, then if nothing else, they’re completely incompetent if nothi9ng else, and just giving Fox more ammunition to work with.
And perhaps any number of groups could spend their money on charity to the third world instead of whatever pressing issue they consider important here! The point is that your initial excuse is weak sauce. American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation consider upholding the first amendment and the separation of church and state to be important. That’s what they campaign on.
I already did! Here it is again:
What a bizarre sidetrack. I think Dredd Scott was a terrible decision. I think that the “Lemon Test” currently used to ensure that the state is not propping up one religion above all others is a very useful and appropriate test. Look, it’s simple. The first amendment prevents any law with regards to an establishment of religion. The fourteenth amendment incorporates the amendments down to the state and local level. You cannot have the state propping up one religion above another. And when a school spends time and money to, say, take a class to visit a Christian religious ceremony, and then refuses to do the same for any other religion, it is, in effect, propping up Christianity above any other religion. This is why you can find satanist displays in places where the government puts up nativity scenes - legally, if the government offers public space to one religion, it has to offer public space to all religions.
In the previous thread, I said I don’t believe this has ever happened. So… yeah. Citation needed. I’m pretty sure this has never happened.
Then they would be better off putting up billboards why atheism or Humanism is a better alternative, rather than just attacking other religions.
I’m saying that if they think putting up billboards which just attack Christianity, Islam, etc instead of explain why atheism or Humanism is a good alternative, they won’t do much other than just piss off religious people.
The question is why do you consider their interpretation of the 1st Amendment the right one?
If your argument is just the weak argument that “… well the courts held it up so it must be correct!” then again that brings up Dredd Scott.
I’m saying courts can misinterpret the intended meaning, and myself I doubt that the 1st Amendment was intended to mean that all religious displays on public grounds should be censored, as long as one isn’t being favored over the others.
So no, I think so long as a nativity scene isn’t funded by the taxpayer it’s perfectly fine to have one on public grounds, and if Satanists want to put up their own monument, then it’s their right as well.
In a case last year for example a group of students brought Christmas cards to school and were forced to take them out of public view out of fear of a lawsuit.
So why do you think this is what the 1st Amendment was intended to mean?
Seems like as long as the school isn’t stopping students from bringing in Ramadan or Hanukkah cards, there should be no problem with students displaying Christmas cards.
At first glance, candy canes may not appear to have religious connotations. According to one old tale, however, they were first made to represent shepherds’ crooks. When one student showed up to school with candy canes bearing notes explaining the connection, a principal in Texas banned the peppermint treats. Similarly, another Texas elementary school banned pencils that said “Jesus is the reason for the season.” After eight years (eight years) in court, neither principal was held liable.
Unless the school is telling students “It’s okay to bring in Christmas cards, but not Hanukkah or Ramadan cards” then I don’t think it should be a problem.
Different strategies can work for different folks. Some people are more likely to be swayed by calm, reasoned arguments, and others might only swayed by mockery and ridicule of religion. And there are many more. If the worst thing you can say about these orgs is that you don’t think their tactics are effective, then that’s not much at all.
And this is also current jurisprudence. If the government is simply leaving space open for various religious or non-religious displays, then there’s no problem. The governments that do that don’t get sued, because they’ve done nothing wrong. The government is not allowed to favor one religion over any other.
For like the third time: cite? I can’t find anything on this case.
That’s not about students bringing cards in. That’s about teachers (AKA civil servants/public employees) bringing cards in. I would hope you could see the difference, but I’m not particularly optimistic about that at this point.
In this case here, we have a Humanist Damon Vix claiming that Nativity displays are blatant government establishment of religion, but attempting to put up Humanist displays on public grounds himself, which aren’t even about promoting the goodness of Humanism so much as just attacking other religions… seems a bit hypocritical.
I am an atheist and I am not the least bit threatened by a nativity display or menorah, whether it’s in your yard or in a town’s public square. You, however, seem threatened by atheists requesting equal opportunity to display their message in the same public manner/venue. Why?
Um nope, I have no problem with Humanists or any religion putting up displays so long as it’s not funded directly by the taxpayers.
Though as I mentioned his display isn’t about promoting the tenants of Humanism, just attacking religions other than Humanism, so it’d be the equivalent of a Christian putting up a display just for the purpose of telling atheists to go to hell rather than share anything about Christ’s love. Why didn’t he put up a display telling others why Humanism is so great, instead of just telling others their religions suck?
Plus it’s he himself who’s threatened by it, since he apparently believes that religious displays (other than Humanism) shouldn’t be on public grounds at all even if all have an equal right to be there.
So no it definitely seems a case of him just being obsessed with Christians despite the state having given him the opportunity to put up his own Humanist displays, as the article proves.
There’s just not that much government property where I live … it’s really no big deal that these places can’t put up religiously themed decorations … frankly, as a Christian, I’d rather City Hall and public schools NOT get involved … it’s none of their business and they should stay out of it …